The Great Debate: Friends vs. Seinfeld

[klunderbunker]

Yes, this is my second Seinfeld thread inside of 5 minutes. Apparently it's popular.

In the 90s, these two were the "it" comedies. There were dozens if not hundreds of sitcoms, but these are normally considered to be the best two. You have the 6 Friends who had all kinds of on again/off again romances that were a big part of the series' appeal. On the other hand, you have the misadventures of the 4 Seinfeld characters in the show about nothing. It could be described as high level humor vs. low level humor. So, which show was better? As not really a fan of either, I can't really give a solid opinion on this.

 

[Dave]

Friends. It's not even close.

I think that Friends is probably the greatest sitcom of all time and here's why:

When I was younger, I never really watched a lot of TV. I am completely different now, you cannot tare me away from TV shows now. I remember as a boy getting some of the jokes on Friends and thinking, yeah, that's a good show. A couple of months ago, I "acquired" all of the seasons of Friends for viewing on my laptop. So with the best intentions of stirring up some old memories, I set a whole weekend aside to watch all the episodes I could. I got through season 1-7 that weekend and I thought to myself, not only is this show a funny show un terms of low-level humour, there is a lot of adult humour in it. When I was re-watching it, I could not believe some of the jokes in it. How they got away with it is unbelievable. The best thing about Friends is that all of the characters were likeable and you tuned in every week to see what each one was doing.

Seinfeld never held the same draw for me. I never watched it when it was on and going back to watch it now, I find it unfunny at times and I also find it hard to see how people can legitimately claim that it is on the same level as Friends. The writing in Friends will never be surpassed. Just a supreme show.

 

[X]

When I was younger, I never really watched a lot of TV. I am completely different now, you cannot tare me away from TV shows now. I remember as a boy getting some of the jokes on Friends and thinking, yeah, that's a good show. A couple of months ago, I "acquired" all of the seasons of Friends for viewing on my laptop. So with the best intentions of stirring up some old memories, I set a whole weekend aside to watch all the episodes I could. I got through season 1-7 that weekend and I thought to myself, not only is this show a funny show un terms of low-level humour, there is a lot of adult humour in it. When I was re-watching it, I could not believe some of the jokes in it. How they got away with it is unbelievable. The best thing about Friends is that all of the characters were likeable and you tuned in every week to see what each one was doing.

I guess we were watching completely different shows. The jokes were completely safe and stereotypical of 90s sitcoms. Seinfeld was FAR more promiscuous in it's material, having episodes devoted to a *********ion contest among other things. I don't remember Friends ever being that edgy.

And the characters were all completely unlikable from my experience. The only two people on that show that I could stand were Cox and Aniston, everyone else just came off as either a jackass or a douchebag. Come on, David Schwimmer? One of the worst actors, EVER.

Seinfeld never held the same draw for me. I never watched it when it was on and going back to watch it now, I find it unfunny at times and I also find it hard to see how people can legitimately claim that it is on the same level as Friends. The writing in Friends will never be surpassed. Just a supreme show.

I can understand you digging Friends more from personal memories and everything, but you CANNOT legitimately claim that Friends had superior writing to Seinfeld, let alone the writing that will "never be surpassed". That's fucking ridiculous, it was a run-of-the-mill 90s sitcom that used the exact same formula that every sitcom before it did. Whereas Seinfeld was completely groundbreaking and revolutionary, and changed the way television shows are made to this day.

Seriously though, I could think of a good hundred television shows with superior writing than Friends. Twilight Zone, Lost, X-Files, Wonder Years, Boy Meets World, Seinfeld, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Arrested Development, The Larry Sanders Show, The Prisoner, Star Trek, I mean honestly I could just name you HUNDREDS of television shows with infinitely superior writing.

Seinfeld is the better show, and it's not even close. All of the mindless drones were busy watching Seinfeld and laughing at it's by-the-numbers "jokes" while the rest of the intelligent people in America were busy watching Seinfeld. Literally everything about Seinfeld is superior. Cast? Puts Friends to shame. Writing? Makes Friends look like a children's show.

Seinfeld > Friends in every way imaginable.

 

[jmt225]

I love Friends. I hate Seinfeld. Why? Well, I would like to save my best arguments for the upcoming sitcom tournament, as this will undoubtedly be the last match-up.

In the meantime, however, I really, really want to argue this point:

Come on, David Schwimmer? One of the worst actors, EVER.

X, I love ya bro, but I have never seen anything so incredibly false come from you, EVER.

Seriously, outside of Friends... have you seen any of David Schwimmer's work? The Wonder Years, I would presume. You didn't think he was good in that? Band of Brothers? What about that, X? Or how about his incredible performances in films such as Uprising, The Pallbearer, Apt Pupil, Kissing a Fool, Big Nothing, and Duane Hopwood? Duane Hopwood is especially terrific and he's every bit as good in that as Nicholas Cage was in Leaving Las Vegas, in my opinion.

David Schwimmer is a fantastic actor X, and he's on his way to becoming a fantastic director, too (Run Fatboy Run was great). His comedic timing is absolutely superb, and if you ever watch Duane Hopwood, you'll see he's an unbelievable dramatic actor as well. Typing this up, I'm just realizing, all around... he's one of the most talented people in Hollywood, period. And the upcoming years will be awesome to watch him cement his legacy in cinema history.

 

[X]

X, I love ya bro, but I have never seen anything so incredibly false come from you, EVER.

Seriously, outside of Friends... have you seen any of David Schwimmer's work? The Wonder Years, I would presume. You didn't think he was good in that?

He was all right in the Wonder Years, nothing to write home about. I'll give you The Wonder Years though.

Band of Brothers?

This is the only work of Schwimmer's that I can say I really enjoyed. The only role I've ever seen him in where I thought he was actually good. So I'll give you Band of Brothers as well.

What about that, X? Or how about his incredible performances in films such as Uprising, The Pallbearer, Apt Pupil, Kissing a Fool, Big Nothing, and Duane Hopwood?

Uprising - Mediocre. Schwimmer wasn't bad though.

The Pallbearer - Never seen it.

Apt Pupil - That movie pissed me the fuck off. Completely raped the novella. I hate that film, and thus everything in it. Schwimmer wasn't anything special.

Kissing a Fool - Good movie, but nothing spectacular about Schwimmer's performance. I'm not seeing this amazing talent that you are JMT.

Big Nothing - Haven't seen it, looks good though.

Duane Hopwood- Not a fan. Mediocre at best. Schwimmer was all right.

Duane Hopwood is especially terrific and he's every bit as good in that as Nicholas Cage was in Leaving Las Vegas, in my opinion.

WHAT?! Man, finally we start disagreeing on things JMT! Cage's performance in Leaving Las Vegas is a powerhouse, and Schwimmer's performance in Hopwood can't touch it, not even close. I'm not one to praise Nicolas Cage normally, but he was beyond amazing in that film. He was amazing in Adaptation as well.

David Schwimmer is a fantastic actor X, and he's on his way to becoming a fantastic director, too (Run Fatboy Run was great).

You liked Run Fatboy Run? Man I absolutely hated that piece of garbage. I normally love anything involving Simon Pegg, but that movies just fell flat in every single direction it tried to run in. Awfully disappointing.

His comedic timing is absolutely superb, and if you ever watch Duane Hopwood, you'll see he's an unbelievable dramatic actor as well. Typing this up, I'm just realizing, all around... he's one of the most talented people in Hollywood, period. And the upcoming years will be awesome to watch him cement his legacy in cinema history.

I understand your love of Schwimmer here, but come on man one of the best in all of Hollywood? Bit ridiculous. I'm sure there are dozens of more talented actors I could name in Hollywood man, let alone internationally.

Still, Seinfeld > Friends, in every way.

 

[Mr. Steve]

Seinfeld never held the same draw for me. I never watched it when it was on and going back to watch it now, I find it unfunny at times and I also find it hard to see how people can legitimately claim that it is on the same level as Friends. The writing in Friends will never be surpassed. Just a supreme show.

I got love for you, Dave...yet you're killing me on this one.
It's not on the same level as Friends. Seinfeld's beyond Friends. The level of writing that Seinfeld brought puts Friends to shame.The way the characters get portrayed there is cartoonishly realistic. Friends, to me, tried to make that happen but for some reason, it doesn't get there. The reason that you find it unfunny is because it's a show out of it's time. But on the other side of things, I like it because of that. It's timeless to me. Don't get me wrong, Friends was great, and it had a good run which is better than most shows out there can say. But Seinfeld is simply better.

Seinfeld all the damn way.

How can you NOT find this better than Friends?

[youtube]WsKNvGeNKyE[/youtube] Not the finer parts of Seinfeld, but it's cool.

 

[jmt225]

He was all right in the Wonder Years, nothing to write home about. I'll give you The Wonder Years though.

This is the only work of Schwimmer's that I can say I really enjoyed. The only role I've ever seen him in where I thought he was actually good. So I'll give you Band of Brothers as well.

Uprising - Mediocre. Schwimmer wasn't bad though.

The Pallbearer - Never seen it.

Apt Pupil - That movie pissed me the fuck off. Completely raped the novella. I hate that film, and thus everything in it. Schwimmer wasn't anything special.

Kissing a Fool - Good movie, but nothing spectacular about Schwimmer's performance. I'm not seeing this amazing talent that you are JMT.

Big Nothing - Haven't seen it, looks good though.

Duane Hopwood- Not a fan. Mediocre at best. Schwimmer was all right.

Whether you think Schwimmer is as amazing as I do is now irrelevant, because reading this X... you proved my point. How could you have said before that Schwimmer, and I quote, is "one of the worst actors, EVER"? In all those statements, you really didn't say one bad thing about the man, lol.

And you know what? Name one actor from Seinfeld who did any better in cinema than Schwimmer has. Who has a resume from that show that can compete with that? Or hell... with Aniston's, or Perry's, or Kudrow's, or Cox' for that matter?

WHAT?! Man, finally we start disagreeing on things JMT! Cage's performance in Leaving Las Vegas is a powerhouse, and Schwimmer's performance in Hopwood can't touch it, not even close. I'm not one to praise Nicolas Cage normally, but he was beyond amazing in that film.

Leaving Las Vegas just had a better story than Duane Hopwood. The performances of both gentlemen though were fantastic. Absolutely fantastic.

He was amazing in Adaptation as well.

Agreed.

Cage, actually, in my opinion, is the most inconsistent actor in Hollywood. It's strange how one minute he can make you feel as though he's one of the greatest actors alive, and then you pop in something of his, and start thinking to yourself how awful he actually is. Weird.

You liked Run Fatboy Run? Man I absolutely hated that piece of garbage. I normally love anything involving Simon Pegg, but that movies just fell flat in every single direction it tried to run in. Awfully disappointing.

I had my reservations about Run Fatboy Run as the trailer seemed rather dull. But I have to say the movie had me laughing a ton. I was pulling for Pegg's character like crazy. KY Jelly on nipples makes me laugh, what can I say? So do shoplifting Black dragqueens.

And even if you didn't enjoy it, David Schwimmer didn't write it, he directed it. And the film looked really good. Even if you didn't like what you were seeing, you have to admit there's potential for him as a director after seeing that film.

I understand your love of Schwimmer here, but come on man one of the best in all of Hollywood? Bit ridiculous. I'm sure there are dozens of more talented actors I could name in Hollywood man, let alone internationally.

I didn't say one of the most talented actors; I said one of the most talented people. And I didn't say he was so now; I'm saying in the future he could very well establish himself as such, and I personally expect him to.

Still, Seinfeld > Friends, in every way.

Yeah, every way in ridiculousness.

Look, let me just put it to you this way. Friends is South Park, and Seinfeld is Family Guy. That's the comparison I think of when discussing these two shows.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

I'll go with neither. Both of these shows followed the lives of completely unsympathetic, self-centered twentysomethings/thirtysomethings. However, I will note here that Seinfeld's characters were meant to be egotistical a-holes and recognized themselves as such, so they're excused for their actions. Friends' characters, though, are not excused, as they were meant to come off as lovable, even though I never found anything about them redeeming.

Next, we have to consider originality. I can't deny that Seinfeld was an innovative show with some keen comedic insights. In contrast, Friends was pretty much just a rehash of Three's Company and other "battle of the sexes" sitcoms that preceded it, save for the fact that it was much raunchier. So, Seinfeld again gets the edge here.

It seems like I actually would pick Seinfeld here, but that show's been completely blown away by Larry David's other show, Curb Your Enthusiasm. Also, even though inspired by Seinfeld, It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia is heads and shoulders above it. Finally, another show that's unequivocally better than both Friends and Seinfeld is Arrested Development, which, despite its very short-run, will probably end up being the most important sitcom of this decade.

 

[Mr. TM]

I loved both shows, and watched both of them religiously. I still go through them, but one of the I do watch more. And that is Friends. Seinfeld is an epic show, but there is nothing like Friends that connects with the audience that makes you feel like there is Ross, Rachel, Monica, Phoebe, Joey, Chandler and TM. Diners are not comfortable, a coffee house with a couch is.

Also, the greatest character of the 10 main characters is Chandler. He is funny, sarcastic, but loveable. He is easy to relate to, he lives a moderate live, and he can be the butt of a joke/make the joke of the day within one sentence.

Seinfeld does have the better supporting cast though by far. From Steinbrunner, to Jackie, to Soup Nazi to whoever else. They were all great.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I've been watching Friends eight years longer than Seinfeld and I would take Seinfeld. Friends was basically centered around Rachel and Ross and their relationship. There were some good moments here and there with Emily telling Ross that he couldn't see Rachel again. I found Friends funny sometimes but half the time it could get kind of boring but maybe that was because I didn't have cable then.

The great thing about Seinfeld is that each of the four main characters have different personalities and they play their respective ones to perfection. It's hard to replace either Jerry, Elaine, George, or Kramer and still make it a great show. They were more edgy in what they did than Friends and you were guaranteed a couple of laughs in almost every episode. I still love Friends but I just think Seinfeld is better.

Me personally, Friends wouldn't have lasted two years without Lisa Kudrow. She basically saved the show because she was the best character in that show. I could have done without Monica or Chandler but I couldn't have without Phoebe.

 

[hArdyPUNKmArk]

Friends.

I've watched all 10 seasons multiple times and still love it, Seinfeld, not so much.

I like Seinfeld, don't get me wrong but I just never got drawn into wanting to see how things worked out or what happened next. When I first bought the seasons of Friends I would be halfway through an episode and think "I should go to bed after this ep" but then I would realise 6 episodes later it's 8.30 in the morning and I'm fucking late for work. Friends just kept me engaged so much more than Seinfeld ever has. And when Bee Movie came out I almost despised Seinfeld, shit movie.

Anyways, the reason I think Friends became as big as it did is because all the cast were the main attraction. People can argue it was all about Ross and Rachel but that's bull shit, there was Chandler and Monica (which I personally loved more than R&R) and Joey's antics and Phoebe's cookyness (hmm spelling) where as with Seinfeld was all about Jerry Jerry Jerry. Yeah Kramer, George and Elaine were good, but they were not focused on nearly as much as Jerry himself.

I personally love Friends and enjoy the odd ep here and there of Seinfeld so my vote is definatley for Friends.

Friends > Seinfeld

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

Seinfeld and it's not even close.

This show had a completely random premise. It was about nothing. No real point. No real goal of any of the characters. Just a show, about Jerry, George, Elaine, and Kramer living their lives day by day. No other show could do what Seinfeld accomplished. Their characters were great because there was a piece of each character inside of us. I was a George. High strung, short, and ill tempered. It was a show I watch religiously to this day and have every season from the show.

Friends on the other hand...not so much. Besides seeing Jennifer Aniston's nipples through her shirts on occasion, and watching Chandler be a complete tool all the time, the show had very little entertainment value. And out of all the characters to have a spin off...JOEY?! Really? 'How ya doin'?' That says it all.

 

["Cool Guy" Jensen]

I am a big fan of Friends, but unfortunately, I had to start watching it after the series finale. On Thursdays, I would usually watch Smackdown, and when I didn't, I would forget all about Friends. I love the character of Joey Tribbiani and Chandler Bing, and for some reason, I crack up every time I see Gunther. The character of Janice is very annoying. Ross' wife is a lesbian. Hilarious! Friends is one of the greatest TV shows of all times.

As for Seinfeld, I can't really say that it's not as good as Friends, as I have only watched one full episode. But, I believe that the show is about... nothing. Who wants to watch a show that's about that? Lol.

Well, all kidding aside, I think Friends is a much better show than Seinfeld, just for the simple fact that I watch it very often. In my opinion, it is very well-written and the characters are very well-defined. No wonder it lasted 10 season, but I can't compare it to Seinfeld, as I'm not 100% sure how many seasons it had, I'm thinking nine.

 

[laxfan41]

Definitely Seinfeld, Friends is okay, but people still say "no soup for you!" it is still around today after like 10 years after ending. With Seinfeld they made there show about making fun of things that people do almost everyday. Although Seinfeld is better than Friends, The Office is better than the two.